# data[].attributes.headline
Voice Recording Multilingual and Linguistic Diversity in Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Voice Recording Multilingual and Linguistic Diversity in Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Multilingual & Linguistic Diversity in Education

# data[].attributes.body
Crtiical Pedagogy -proposes a pedagogy with a new relationship between teacher, student, and society. Traditional school model is oppressive, "banking" model of ed where students are seen as empty vessels that teachers fill with knowledge. Wrote"Pedagogy of the Opressed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pedagogy of the Oppressed ( Portuguese: Pedagogia do Oprimido) is a book by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, written in Portuguese between 1967 and 1968, but published first in Spanish in 1968. An English translation was published in 1970, with the Portuguese original being published in 1972 in Portugal, and then again in Brazil in 1974. The book is considered one of the foundational texts of critical pedagogy, and proposes a pedagogy with a new relationship between teacher, student, and society.

Dedicated to the oppressed and based on his own experience helping Brazilian adults to read and write, Freire includes a detailed Marxist class analysis in his exploration of the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized. In the book, Freire calls traditional pedagogy the " banking model of education" because it treats the student as an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge, like a piggy bank. He argues that pedagogy should instead treat the learner as a co-creator of knowledge.

As of 2000, the book had sold over 750,000 copies worldwide. It is the third most cited book in the social sciences.

Due to the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état, where a military dictatorship was put in place with the support of the United States, Paulo Freire was exiled from his home country, an exile that lasted 16 years. After a brief stay in Bolivia, he moved to Chile in November 1964 and stayed until April 1969 when he accepted a temporary position at Harvard University. His four-and-a-half year stay in Chile impacted him intellectually, pedagogically, and ideologically, and contributed significantly to the theory and analysis he presents in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In Freire's own words:

When I wrote [ Pedagogy of the Oppressed] I was already completely convinced of the problem of social classes. In addition, I wrote this book on the basis of my extensive experience with peasants in Chile; being absolutely convinced of the process of ideological hegemony and what that meant. When I would hear the peasants speaking, I experienced the whole problem of the mechanism of domination (which I analyze in the first chapter of the book)...Certainly, in my earliest writings I did not make this explicit, because I did not perceive it yet as such...[ Pedagogy of the Oppressed] is also completely situated in a historical reality.

Freire wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed between 1967 and 1968, while living in the United States. Originally written in his native Portuguese, Pedagogy of the Oppressed was first published in Spanish in 1968.This was followed by an English version, in a translation by Myra Bergman Ramos, in 1970. The Portuguese original was released in Portugal in 1972 and in Brazil in 1974.[citation needed ] Though Ramos' translation has received some degree of criticism, Freire approved of it and was involved in consultation during the translating process.

The work was strongly influenced by Karl Marx and Frantz Fanon. As one critic, John D. Holst, describes it:

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire expresses a maturing Marxist-influenced analysis of the political nature of education that clearly places literacy and critical education within the context of the struggle of the oppressed to go beyond capitalist modernization and toward a revolutionary transformation.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed is divided into four chapters and a preface. The frontmatter includes an epigraph which reads "To the oppressed, and to those who suffer with them and fight at their side".

In the preface, Freire provides a background to his work, and outlines potential opposition to his ideas. He explains that his thinking originated in his experience as a teacher, both in Brazil and during his time in political exile. During this time, he noticed that his students had an unconscious fear of freedom, or rather: a fear of changing the way the world is. Freire then outlines the likely criticisms he believes his book will face. Freire's intended audience are radicals-people who see the world as changing and fluid-and he admits that his argument will most likely be missing necessary elements to construct pedagogies in given material realities. Basing his method of finding freedom on the poor and middle class's experience with education, Freire states that his ideas are rooted in reality-not purely theoretical.

In the first chapter, Freire outlines why he believes an emancipatory pedagogy is necessary. Describing humankind's central problem as that of affirming one's identity as human, Freire states that everyone strives for this, but oppression prevents many people from realizing this state of affirmation. This is termed dehumanization. Dehumanization, when individuals become objectified, occurs due to injustice, exploitation, and oppression. Pedagogy of the Oppressed is Freire's attempt to help the oppressed fight back to regain their lost humanity and achieve full humanization. Freire outlines steps with which the oppressed can regain their humanity, starting with acquiring knowledge about the concept of humanization itself.

It is easy for the oppressed to fight their oppressors only to become the polar opposites of what they currently are. In other words, this just makes them the oppressors and starts the cycle all over again. To be fully human again, they must identify the oppressors. They must identify them and work together to seek liberation. The next step in liberation is to understand what the goal of the oppressors is. Oppressors are purely materialistic. They see humans as objects and by suppressing individuals, they are able to own these humans. While they may not be consciously putting down the oppressed, they value ownership over humanity, essentially dehumanizing themselves. This is important to realize as the goal of the oppressed is to not only gain power. It is to allow all individuals to become fully human so that no oppression can exist.

Freire states that once the oppressed understand their own oppression and discovers their oppressors, the next step is dialogue, or discussion with others to reach the goal of humanization. Freire also highlights other events on this journey that the oppressed must undertake. There are many situations that the oppressed must keep wary about. For example, they must be aware of the oppressors trying to help the oppressed. These people are deemed falsely generous, and in order to help the oppressed, one must first fully become the oppressed, mentally and environmentally. Only the oppressed can allow humanity to become fully human with no instances of objectification.

In chapter 2, Freire outlines his theories of education. The first discussed is the banking model of education. He believes the fundamental nature of education is to be narrative. There is one individual reciting facts and ideas (the teacher) and others who just listen and memorize everything (the students). There is no connection with their real life, resulting in a very passive learning style. This form of education is termed the banking model of education. The banking model is very closely linked with oppression. It is built on the fact that the teacher knows all, and there exist inferiors who must just accept what they are told. They are not allowed to question the world or their teachers. This lack of freedom highlights the comparisons between the banking model of education and oppression. Freire urges the dismissal of the banking model of education and the adoption of the problem-posing model. This model encourages a discussion between teacher and student. It blurs the line between the two as everyone learns alongside each other, creating equality and the lack of oppression. There are many ways the banking model of education aligns with oppression. Essentially, it dehumanizes the student. If they are raised to learn to be blank slates molded by the teacher, they will never be able to question the world if they need to. This form of education encourages them to just accept what is thrust upon them and accept that as correct. It makes the first step of humanization very difficult. If they are trained to be passive listeners, they will never be able to come to the realization that there even exist oppressors.

Chapter 3 is used to expand on Freire's idea of dialogue. He first explains the importance of words, and that they must reflect both action and reflection. Dialogue is an understanding between different people and it is an act of love, humility, and faith. It provides others with the complete independence to experience the world and name it how they see it. Freire explains that educators shape how students see the world and history. They must use language with the point of view of the students in mind. They must allow "thematic investigation": the discovery of different relevant problems ( limit situations) and ideas for different periods of time. This ability is the difference between animals and humans. Animals are stuck in the present unlike humans who understand history and use it to shape the present. Freire explains that the oppressed usually are not able to see the problems of their own time, and oppressors feed on this ignorance. Freire also presses the importance of educators not becoming oppressors and not objectifying their students. Educators and students must work as a team to find the problems of history and the present.

Freire lays out the process of how the oppressed can truly liberate themselves in chapter 4. He explains the methods used by oppressors to suppress humanity and the actions the oppressed can take in order to liberate humanity. The tools the oppressors use are termed "anti-dialogical actions" and the ways the oppressed can overcome them are "dialogical actions". The four anti-dialogical actions include conquest, manipulation, divide and rule, and cultural invasion. The four dialogical actions, on the other hand, are unity, compassion, organization, and cultural synthesis.

Upon its release, Pedagogy of the Oppressed had an immediate impact on the field of educational studies in the United States. In 1971 it was already described as "a small classic of pedagogical theory", and awarded a "high status" in academic circles. In some countries under military dictatorships the book was both burned and banned, and Freire was forbidden to travel to several countries in Latin America and Africa after his ideas were taken up by radical revolutionary groups.

Shortly after its release, Edgar Z. Friedenberg wrote that the book's weaknesses were its "pedantic style, the consistent underestimate of the opposition and the very peculiar avoidance of Freire's own extensive experience as a source of illustrative material". Friedenberg said that a positive aspect of the book was Freire's recognition that formal education in the Brazilian setting is "counter-revolutionary and oppressive".

In his 1989 book Life in Schools, Peter McLaren emphasized that the teacher's politics are foundational to the pedagogy articulated in Freire's book. Building on McLaren, others said that the fourth chapter is the lynchpin holding the project together, and that the emphasis on the first two chapters severs Freire's method from his ideology and his politics from his pedagogy. The reasons for its neglect stem from the chapter's explicit concern with the revolutionary party and leadership, which Derek R. Ford argued flows from the Leninist conception of the party. Tyson Lewis similarly said that "Freire himself clearly saw his pedagogy as a tool to be used within revolutionary organization to mediate the various relationships between the oppressed and the leaders of resistance."

Freire was criticized by feminists for his use of sexist language in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and it was revised for the 1995 edition to avoid sexism. Freire's later writings reflect the impact of this criticism, and use more inclusive language.

Freire's work was one inspiration for Augusto Boal's Theatre of the Oppressed.

In his introduction to the 30th anniversary edition of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Donaldo Macedo, a former colleague of Freire and University of Massachusetts Boston professor, called the book a revolutionary text, and said that people in totalitarian states risk punishment for reading it. During the apartheid period in South Africa, the book was banned. Clandestine copies of the book were distributed underground as part of the "ideological weaponry" of various revolutionary groups like the Black Consciousness Movement.

In 2006, Pedagogy of the Oppressed came under criticism over its use by the Mexican American Studies Department Program at Tucson High School. In 2010, the Arizona State Legislature passed House Bill 2281, enabling the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction to restrict state funding to public schools with ethnic studies programs, effectively banning the programs. Tom Horne, who was Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction at the time, criticized the programs for "teaching students that they are oppressed". The book was among seven titles officially confiscated from Mexican American studies classrooms, sometimes in front of students, by the Tucson Unified School District after the passing of HB 2281.

In a 2009 article for the conservative City Journal, Sol Stern wrote that Pedagogy of the Oppressed ignores the traditional touchstones of Western education (e.g. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, or Maria Montessori) and contains virtually none of the information typically found in traditional teacher education (e.g., no discussion of curriculum, testing, or age-appropriate learning). On the contrary, Freire rejects traditional education as "official knowledge" that intends to oppress. Stern also wrote in 2006 that heirs to Freire's ideas have taken them to mean that since all education is political: "leftist math teachers who care about the oppressed have a right, indeed a duty, to use a pedagogy that, in Freire's words, 'does not conceal-in fact, which proclaims-its own political character'".

A 2019 article in British internet magazine Spiked said that "In 2016, the Open Syllabus Project catalogued the 100 most requested titles on its service by English-speaking universities: the only Brazilian on its list was Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pedagogy of the Oppressed ( Portuguese: Pedagogia do Oprimido) is a book by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, written in Portuguese between 1967 and 1968, but published first in Spanish in 1968. An English translation was published in 1970, with the Portuguese original being published in 1972 in Portugal, and then again in Brazil in 1974.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi 5th graders!

Today you are going to use this tool, Padlet, along with any other tech tools you choose to plan a writing lesson for your fifth grade class.

You will have just today's work time to plan the lesson. The lesson should be rather short, between 5 and 10 minutes, leaving enough work time for 5th grade writers.

Our objective for the lesson is to teach students that great writers slow down in the revision process and elaborate on their writing.

How might we teach that to other 5th graders?

I (Ms. Dolphin) will be here to help you, and I will help you during the lesson in class tomorrow.

Let's see how we can work together, and use tech to help, as student leaders!

# data[].attributes.headline
Tal Reading Canyon Mystery Feb 26, 2020 Level U

# data[].attributes.subject
Tal Reading Canyon Mystery Feb 26, 2020 Level U

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tal' Reading Canyon Mystery Feb 26, 2020 Level U

# data[].attributes.headline
Editing Lesson Writing and Tech integration

# data[].attributes.subject
Editing Lesson Writing and Tech integration

# data[].attributes.body
Explicitly teach students how to use the spell-check feature in a way that pushes them to think about the correct spelling BEFORE clicking on the red line to view the correction. Additionally, explicitly teach students how to use a tech tool to collect and save all of the words they spell wrong. Then, students generate their own spelling lists and use a tech tool to practice spelling. Can be used with grammar too.

# data[].attributes.body
Developing 21st century skills through entrepreneurship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Entrecomp in a nutshell: find out more about the tool to support a common understanding of entrepreneurship competence.

A brochure with more information is also available.
Catalog N. : KE-04-18-689-EN-N

Available on

Related publications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Entrecomp in a nutshell: find out more about the tool to support a common understanding of entrepreneurship competence. A brochure with more information is also available. Catalog N. : KE-04-18-689-EN-N Available on Related publications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21st Century Skills - Week 4: Mini Action Research Project | Coursera

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Before we start working with Web 2.0 tools, let's review what we mean by 21st century skills. 21st century skills are those abilities that enable students to access, analyze, manage, synthesize, evaluate, create and share information in a variety of forms and media that incorporates a global perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
International Schools' Assessment

# data[].attributes.body
School:
Monday:
complete U1 A1 Blog post,
Assessments A2
Tuesday: Read 2 articles on the flight
Wednesday-Friday: Read 2 articles
Saturday:
Interview Questions
21st Century skills summaries

Personal:
Get fingerprints
go to Vision+, buy contacts
Check in flight
pack bag
return library books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Francesca Caena , Christine Redecker ,

European Commission Joint Research Centre, Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain
Search for more papers by this author

Corresponding Author

European Commission Joint Research Centre, Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain
Correspondence
Francesca Caena, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain

Email: Francesca.CAENA@ec.europa.eu
Search for more papers by this author

First published:

Abstract

Teachers need to update their competence profiles for 21st century challenges. Teaching strategies need to change and so do the competences teachers need to develop so as to empower 21st-century learners. The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) represents a paradigmatic example of this endeavour, taking stock of these needs. Defining the requirements of education professionals by teacher competence frameworks can serve multiple purposes at different levels in education systems. At the micro level, it can support and guide teachers' practice and continuous professional development. At the meso level of local education governance, it can support the development of school institutions as learning organisations, providing common ground for dialogue, collaboration and reflection in professional communities of practice. At the macro level of quality assurance, it can provide reference standards for initial teacher education, and for education professionals' quality along the career continuum. The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators was designed to align with institutional and contextual requirements in different countries, whilst remaining open to adaptation and updating. It links teachers' and students' digital competence development, and can be linked to institutional capacity building. At the same time, the framework is generic enough to apply to different educational settings and to allow for adaptation as technological possibilities and constraints evolve.

1 TACKLING DIGITAL REVOLUTION CHALLENGES IN EDUCATION SYSTEMS

The digital revolution has transformed the way children and people play, access information, communicate and learn. Pre-schoolers are already familiar with digital devices. Young people today are more connected than ever, using the Internet for gaming, chatting and social networking, with a significant increase in its usage among young children (up to 8 years of age) (Schleicher, 2019).

It is teachers' responsibility to set up environments and opportunities for deep learning experiences that can uncover and boost pupils' capacities. Teachers are called on to be activators of meaningful learning, not just facilitators, being creative in choosing from a wide palette of strategies to be mixed and adjusted to context and learner. Mentors who build relationships of trust with pupils; orchestrators of individual and group learning; alchemists who compound strategies, techniques and resources to spark pupils' creativity; welders who connect bits and pieces of knowledge and activities into a meaningful whole; team players, understanding and deploying their own and others' potential to the full-teachers need to span all these roles (Caena, 2017).

Helping students to take ownership of their learning through ongoing assessment and reflection on their progress is essential. If they are asked to create, share and connect knowledge to the world, deploying the information and collaboration opportunities offered by digital tools, this can catalyse meaningful learning and increase student motivation (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). Such learning, boosted by the use of technologies, has the potential to develop creative, collaborative participants in a knowledge-based, interdependent world (Hewlett Foundation, 2012; National Research Council, 2012). For such meaningful learning to thrive, teachers need to be excellent lifelong learners, both individually and collectively. It is crucial to build up their pedagogical capacity in relation to the pervasive, enabling role of technologies in the new pedagogies model-to focus on the learning process, help students to discover and master knowledge and enable using it in the world through exploration and connectedness. In this perspective, learning outcomes that matter are not only students' capacities to build new knowledge and lead their own learning, but also the development of lifelong learning citizens (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014).

2 ALIGNING TEACHER PROFILES TO 21ST-CENTURY COMPETENCES

Twenty-first century competences can be seen as necessary to navigate contemporary and future life, shaped by technology that changes workplaces and lifestyles. They underscore new skills, but also lay new emphasis on old ones, thus equipping individuals for new ways of thinking, ways of working, tools for working and living in the world, as outlined in the Assessment and Teaching of Twenty-First Century Skills (ATC21S) framework (Binkley et al., 2012). ATC21S is an international project consortium comprising academic institutions, policymakers, technology businesses (Cisco, Intel, Microsoft) and coordinated by the University of Melbourne which aimed to promote education assessment reform, for direct impact on teaching and learning 21st-century skills (Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012).

The ATC21S framework was based on the analysis of 12 relevant frameworks from different countries and organisations (e.g., the European Commission, the US, Japan, Australia, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland) and worldwide consultations with policymakers, academics and assessment organisations (e.g., OECD, and International Association for the Advancement of Educational Achievement) (Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012). In the ATC21S framework, ways of thinking include creativity and innovation, critical thinking, problem-solving, learning-to-learn and metacognition. Ways of working span communication, collaboration and teamwork; tools for working concern information and ICT literacy. Living in the world places emphasis on local and global citizenship, life and career development, personal and social responsibility (Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012). The framework defines competence as the ability to adjust the skill performance to the demands of the situation. This view encompasses the quality and transferability of skills over time and context, acknowledging the fact that no one performs a skill at the same level, or operates at their maximum every time (Griffin & Care, 2014).

There follows the need for powerful shifts in teaching/learning processes and in the assessment of learning, with related challenges. The ATC21S perspective on 21st-century competences recommends new ways of learning and ways of teaching which need to be considered for the development of suitable assessment strategies (Griffin et al., 2012).

ATC21S proposes an innovative, tech-based approach to the assessment of collaborative problem-solving which considers its dual nature (social and cognitive). It focuses on individual skills development contributing to the collaborative endeavour and relies on technology to measure complex interactions (Griffin & Care, 2014). Such approaches require a paradigm shift in teachers' mindsets, with a focus on interdisciplinary approaches to assessment of competences in interaction, rather than on individual acquisition of discrete content knowledge units. Likewise, the importance of interpersonal and (meta)cognitive skills is stressed by the European Recommendations on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning which view a series of core transversal aspects as embedded throughout the eight Key Competences: critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, communication and negotiation skills, analytical skills, creativity, and intercultural skills (European Council, 2006, 2018). Furthermore, the 2018 Recommendation puts forward a new Key Competence (Personal, Social and Learning to Learn). It intertwines the meta-competence of learning-to-learn (adjusting to change, managing and selecting from huge information flows) with personal and social development (European Council, 2018).

It follows that teachers who are required to understand, deploy, assess, model and promote such key competences and 21st-century skills need interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-solving competences related to PTCK (Pedagogical Technological Content Knowledge) (European Commission, 2013; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This also calls for education institutions as professional learning organisations, with communities of school practitioners engaged in ongoing dialogue to promote development and reflection cycles in pupils and teachers. That is where teacher competence frameworks can stand all education stakeholders in good stead.

3 DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING TEACHER COMPETENCE FRAMEWORKS

Discussions about the competences that are needed by teachers are inevitably linked with assumptions on learning and education, context-specific education cultures, expectations and the professional status of teachers (Conway, Murphy, Rath, & Hall, 2009). The concept of competence in teaching involves tacit and explicit pedagogical subject knowledge, cognitive and practical skills and dispositions (motivation, beliefs, value orientations and emotions), as the OECD DeSeCo programme for PISA surveys points out (Rychen & Salganik, 2003). Competence means that teachers act professionally and appropriately in a situation (Koster & Dengerink, 2008) and ensures teachers' undertaking of tasks effectively (achieving the desired outcome) and efficiently (optimising resources and efforts). Finally, competence can be mapped at different levels along a continuum of development (González & Wagenaar, 2005).

A useful conceptualisation of teacher competences as a dynamic mix of cognitive and meta-cognitive elements (González & Wagenaar, 2005) spells out four fundamental aspects: learning to think, know, feel and act as teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 2008). Learning to think as teachers implies critical examination of one's beliefs and pedagogical thinking. Learning to know as teachers requires deep subject and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), as well as the knowledge of new technologies applied to subject teaching (PTCK-Pedagogical Technological Content Knowledge) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). These three knowledge sets need the support of metacognitive skills (learning and knowledge management; reflection strategies) for teachers to retrieve and use knowledge effectively (Feiman-Nemser, 2008). Learning to feel as teachers is linked with professional identity: intellectual and emotional aspects (Hagger & McIntyre, 2006). Learning to act as teachers entails integrating thoughts, knowledge and dispositions in practices informed by consistent principles (Feiman-Nemser, 2008).

A wider view of teacher expertise embedded in the education ecosystem spans the interlocking areas of reflexivity, professional awareness, individualisation, cooperation and personal mastery (Schratz et al., 2007; Schratz & Wieser, 2002). Reflexivity means developing professional thinking and discourse, based on situated pedagogic issues and experiences (Bastian & Helsper, 2000). Professional awareness is the conscious expertise of the teacher (subject-based and transversal, individual and organisational) (Bauer, 2000). Individualisation entails the knowledge, skills and attitudes to deal with diversity and inclusion (Prengel, 1995). Cooperation implies the teacher's actions and attitudes for dialogue and interaction in social contexts and professional communities; it is viewed as an aspect that is most in need of development in school organisations (Bastian & Helsper, 2000; Terhart & Klieme, 2005). Teachers' competences in cooperation (knowledge, skills and above all attitudes) are bound to be reflected in pupils'. They are also crucial for co-planning and co-enacting suitable pedagogies for the development of 21st-century competences in digital natives. Personal mastery is a pre-requisite for previous competences and entails creativity and vision in effective professional thinking, knowledge and action (Reh, 2004). A sixth area combines all into a whole-the teacher's action in context, with responsibility in shaping it and developing knowledge (Senge, 1996).

Across this broad range of perspectives on teacher expertise, a few staple requirements stand out. Teachers need adaptive expertise-the ability to adapt plans and practices to meet students' learning needs (Hatano & Oura, 2003; Vogt & Rogalla, 2009). They also require reflective practice, that is systematic assessment of professional knowledge and action against criteria from practice, theory and research (Hagger & McIntyre, 2006). Finally, they should have critical, responsive attitudes to innovation and professional improvement (Hagger & McIntyre, 2006). Reflective practice and adaptive expertise are both indispensable for 21st-century educators interacting with digital natives in VUCA (Volatile, Unpredictable, Complex, Ambiguous) worlds. The image below provides an overview of teacher competences, embedded in complex systems in ongoing change (Caena & Margiotta, 2008).

A comparative view on approaches used in European countries suggests that, to be successfully implemented, a teacher competence framework should include the following features:

rely on clear statements of the underlying educational philosophy;

accommodate all dimensions of teachers' professional work;

acknowledge that teaching involves a cycle of self-evaluation and improvement;

be consistent with (but not limited by) the desired learner outcomes;

the key attributes of stability, durability and flexibility (European Commission, 2013).

Building flexibility into the framework allows for local interpretations, leaves room for creativity, and refrains from limiting professional agency (European Commission, 2013). This aspect is fundamental for the profiles of teachers as adaptive professionals-a core requirement in forward-looking education contexts.

Teacher competence frameworks can serve three main purposes: defining outcomes of teacher education, criteria for teacher recruitment and selection, and teacher professional development needs (European Commission, 2013). They can provide teachers with a clear image of their roles, promoting attitudes to professional reflection and autonomy along teachers' careers. Then, as reference points for key professional knowledge and skills, they can support effective professional development at individual and institutional level, by helping focus on learning priorities and needs at different career stages (European Commission, 2013).

Providing shared standards for professional profiles, teacher competence frameworks can also contribute to ensuring effective teacher education provision. Finally, depending on context features, teacher competence frameworks can also help acknowledge achievement in education practitioners' careers (European Commission, 2013). Overall, teacher competence frameworks can support teacher quality, empowerment and responsibility if they have a formative focus and have been shaped promoting teachers' ownership (European Commission, 2013).

4 MOTIVATION FOR DIGCOMPEDU

Policymakers and teachers alike are aware that our education systems have not kept pace or come to terms with the changes brought about by the digital revolution. In many cases, teachers are unsure about how digital technologies can and should be integrated into education. Education authorities are cautious about the use of a medium that they perceive as potentially dangerous in such a sensitive and protective context as the education of minors, considering that it can lead to undesirable effects, such as cyberbullying. Yet, they equally realise that schools must prepare the young generation for life in a digital society and equip them with the necessary competences to use the Internet responsibly, critically and creatively to enhance their social interactions and life opportunities. Hence, there is a general consensus that digital competences are key for all citizens to engage in lifelong learning, to facilitate personal fulfilment and development, employability, social inclusion and active citizenship (European Council, 2018).

Curricula, guidelines or standards for digital education in schools have recently become common in most European Member States. At the European level, the European Digital Competence Framework (DigComp) was published in 2013 and revised in 2016 and 2017 as a means of offering a common frame of reference. It describes the digital competence every citizen should develop for a successful life in a digital society, breaking it down into five areas: information and data literacy; communication and collaboration; digital content creation; safety; and problem-solving (Carretero, Vuorikari, & Punie, 2017; Ferrari, 2013; Vuorikari, Punie, Carretero, & Van Den Brande, 2016). In several European Member States, the framework has been used as an explicit reference for national guidelines, particularly in guiding school education. In Germany, for example, the Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) refined it for their framework of students' digital competence (Kluzer & Pujol Priego, 2018; KMK, 2016).

To better understand the digital competences teachers need to develop to meaningfully integrate digital technologies in education and support the acquisition of students' digital competences, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre published the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) with a focus on the digital competences that are specific to the teaching profession (Redecker, 2017). It is based on extensive expert and stakeholder consultations and aims to structure existing insights and evidence into one comprehensive model that is applicable, in principle, to all educational contexts. The generation and dissemination of this framework illustrate how frameworks can contribute to innovation in education and teacher professional development.

5 FRAMEWORK GENERATION

Designing a transnational framework requires that one understands existing national and transnational instruments already in use, as well as a methodology for learning from these instruments to develop a common frame of reference that resonates with existing policies and, at the same time, goes beyond cultural and contextual specifics. Hence, the methodological approach for the development of DigCompEdu was based on two major stages: (i) The in-depth analysis, clustering and mapping of existing frameworks, self-assessment tools, guidelines, conceptual models and instruments used for the development of educators' digital competence; and (ii) a series of expert and stakeholder consultations to refine, re-arrange, correct and validate the conceptual model developed in the previous stage.

At first, on the basis of extensive desk research, more than 50 instruments were identified as relevant and analysed in their basic components. 32 of these were finally selected as a basis for the generation of a first draft framework. The remaining instruments were excluded as not sufficiently sound or detailed, or substantially different in focus and scope. The basic elements in the selected instruments were then mapped to form competences and clustered to form competence areas. The competences and areas thus defined were then mapped onto the original frameworks to validate their coherence and consistency. The result was submitted to a series of stakeholder consultations: face-to-face meetings with teachers, researchers and policy makers, as well as open online stakeholder consultations on subsequent framework drafts. Initially, consultations had been conceived as a means of refining and validating the conceptual model; however, stakeholder discussions foregrounded a clear need for a framework that did more than synthesise existing tools. There was overall consensus among experts and representatives of the European Member States that a European framework should include important aspects of innovation underlying European education policy initiatives. As a result, the DigCompEdu fulfils its purpose of providing a common reference frame for national, regional and local initiatives. It also invites policy makers and practitioners to re-consider the role of technology in education as an enabler for innovation and describes educators' digital competence as a professional (rather than digital) competence, conducive to creating learning experiences that reflect and address the changed skill needs and working patterns in a digital age.

6 CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE FRAMEWORK

The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) details 22 educator-specific digital competences, organised in six areas (Redecker, 2017) (Figure 1).

Applied to the context of school education, Area 1 ( Professional Engagement) describes teachers' efficient, appropriate use of technologies and digital learning opportunities for communication and collaboration with colleagues, students, parents and others. In addition, it emphasises the importance for teachers to individually and collectively reflect on their teaching practices, to critically assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of their digital teaching strategies and to actively develop them further.

The core of the DigCompEdu framework is represented by areas 2 to 5 in which technologies are integrated into teaching in a pedagogically meaningful way. Area 2 ( Digital Resources) focuses on the selection, creation, modification and management of digital educational resources. This includes the protection of personal data in accordance with data protection regulations and compliance with copyright laws when modifying and publishing digital resources.

The third area ( Teaching and Learning) deals with planning, designing and orchestrating the use of digital technologies in teaching practice. It focuses on the integration of digital resources and methods to promote collaborative and self-regulated learning processes and on the need to accompany these learner-led processes with effective guidance and support measures.

Area 4 ( Assessment) addresses the concrete use of digital technologies for assessing student performance and learning needs to comprehensively analyse performance data and provide targeted, timely feedback to learners.

Area 5, Empowering Learners, emphasises the importance of creating learning activities and experiences that address students' needs and allow them to actively develop their learning journey. Teachers are able to use digital technologies to foster differentiation and personalisation by allowing different levels and speeds, individual learning pathways and objectives. They encourage students' active engagement in digital activities, ensuring equal access to technologies.

Area 6 ( Facilitating Learners' Digital Competence) maintains that digitally-competent teachers should facilitate their students' digital competence, enabling them to manage risks and use digital technologies safely and responsibly. Teachers should be able to promote information and media literacy and integrate activities to enable digital problem solving, digital content creation and digital technology use for communication and cooperation.

Each individual competence of the DigCompEdu framework is described along six proficiency levels (from A1 to C2) with a cumulative progression, similar to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

Teachers at the first two levels (A1-A2) have started to use technology in some areas and are aware of the potential of digital technologies to enhance pedagogical and professional practice. Those at the intermediate level (B1-B2) already integrate digital technologies in a variety of ways and contexts. At the highest levels (C1-C2), they share their expertise with peers, experiment with innovative complex technologies and develop new pedagogical approaches and assessment strategies. The description of levels for each competence is intended to help teachers to reflect and understand their personal strengths and weaknesses.

Other educator-specific competences-e.g., subject-specific competences, general digital competence as defined by the DigComp framework-are important prerequisites for the development of DigCompEdu. However, these are beyond the scope of the framework, which focuses on educator-specific digital competence. While the TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) views technological (T), pedagogical (P) and content (C) knowledge as required to integrate technology in teaching, the DigCompEdu framework is wider in scope, considering educators' digital competences as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes, with the skill dimension dominating over the knowledge dimension. It explicitly includes considerations of the educators' professional working environment and the multiple interactions with learners, colleagues and external stakeholders.

At the same time, for teaching and learning processes (i.e., Areas 2 to 5), DigCompEdu is narrower in scope than TPACK, as it focuses on the pedagogical dimension (PK). It does not contemplate the specificities and constraints of different subjects, i.e., the content dimension (CK), which it assumes is described in curricula and teaching guidelines. Similarly, it takes the technological dimension (TK) as sufficiently described by other frameworks, e.g., the DigComp framework, and only considers this dimension where it overlaps with the pedagogical dimension.

This focus on the pedagogical dimension allows DigCompEdu to supply detail and still be applicable across all subjects in a continuously changing technological landscape. Thus, it explicitly describes how digital technologies can be effectively integrated into teaching and learning, how they can be used to enhance teaching and learning strategies, which key objectives should guide their implementation and how their use can, with growing experience and competence, lead to innovation in education.

7 FRAMEWORK IMPLEMENTATION AND SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

Competence frameworks are primarily targeted at national, regional, local authorities and stakeholders (including initial and in-service teacher education providers, as well as school leadership) that are responsible for the design, implementation and evaluation of policy initiatives, guidelines, curricula and practices. Consequently, in some Member States and regions, DigCompEdu has already been integrated in training courses and guidelines for teachers, such as in the region of Saarland in Germany ( http://tiny.cc/medienkurs), or is being contemplated to be included in future guidelines, such as in Portugal and Croatia. In Spain, the CRUE network of higher education institutions is planning to use it as part of CPD activities for their academic staff, while in Germany the German Adult Education Association (Deutscher Volkshochschul-Verband e.V.) and the Goethe Institut are interested in using the framework for the training of their lecturers. In many instances, the framework report has been translated by national or local actors into different target languages to facilitate the take-up by national and regional actors ( https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu/supporting-materials). Experiences with DigComp show that the level and speed of integrating a European framework in official national guidelines and curricula largely depend on national specificities, needs and policy cycles. It is therefore to be expected that, over the next five to ten years, more and more guidance documents will make reference to DigCompEdu. However, in the case of DigCompEdu, the formal adoption and integration of a European framework at the national or regional level are not the main avenues in which the framework aims to foster innovation and change in education. More and more evidence recently points out that digital education policies are only successful if and where it has been possible to obtain the teachers' buy-in, participation, engagement and, eventually, ownership of the process (Conrads, Rasmussen, Winters, Geniet, & Langer, 2017).

Hence, to acquaint educators with the DigCompEdu framework and integrate its concepts in their own practical theories about digital teaching competence, an online self-assessment instrument has been developed which is freely accessible in a number of languages ( https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu/self-assessment). The development and implementation of the tool were accompanied by the setup of a stakeholder community in which experts and practitioners contributed to the conceptual design of the tool and were invited to exchange their experiences with deploying the framework and the tool in different contexts ( https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/en/community/digcompedu-community).

At the conceptual level, the development of the tool was guided by three principles: (i) to condense and simplify the key ideas of the framework, (ii) to translate competence descriptors into concrete activities and practices that teachers can relate to, and (iii) to offer targeted feedback to teachers according to individual levels of competence for each of the 22 indicators. Following these principles, 22 items were developed, one per competence. Each consists of a statement describing the core of the competence in concrete, practical terms, and five possible answers which are cumulatively structured and mapped onto the proficiency levels. Teachers are asked to select the answer that best reflects their practice.

The instrument development followed an iterative process of expert consultations, pre-piloting and item revision (Benali, Kaddouri, & Azzimani, 2018; Ghomi & Redecker, 2019). The main changes to the initial version entailed creating versions for different educator audiences and a stronger alignment of the answer scale with the DigCompEdu framework progression. This was deemed to be necessary because the use of terminology that is specific to different educational sectors would improve the user experience, especially when comparing school, higher and adult education. It also allowed for targeted and actionable feedback, taking into account different educational contexts and their specific constraints.

Initially, a common answer scale was used with options ordered by frequency, ranging from 'I have never done this' to 'I comprehensively/systematically do this'. Following expert consultation, it was decided to map the answer options more closely on DigCompEdu competence descriptors and progression. Experts agreed that each competence should be represented by only one item and that the total digital competence should consist of all 22 items. Therefore, in some cases, a choice had to be made between different aspects that were crucial to a given competence. However, care was taken to select the most generic and basic concept. For example, for competence 2.3- Managing, protecting, sharing, it was decided to focus on data protection rather than on copyright rules or the use of shared content repositories.

Similarly, the framework's competence progression in six stages was transformed into a five-point-scale-considering progression stages that were expected to be prevalent among current teachers. The scales underlying the framework are based on the assumption that digital competence development involves the following stages: no use-basic use-diversification-meaningful use-systematic use-innovation. In some cases, the categories of meaningful and systematic use were merged, as it was deemed difficult for users to differentiate between the two (see Table 1). In other cases, where current usage patterns were unlikely to display innovative strategies, the highest competence level was left out.

Level

DigCompEdu framework:

Item 3.1:

SCORE

3.1 Teaching

I carefully consider how, when and why to use digital technologies in class, to ensure that they are used with added value.

To plan for and implement digital devices and resources in the teaching process, so as to enhance the effectiveness of teaching interventions

To appropriately manage and orchestrate digital teaching interventions

To experiment with and develop new formats and pedagogical methods for instruction

The resulting instrument employs five answer options for which points ranging from 0 to 4 are scored. In the feedback report, the total score-ranging from 0 to 88 points-is mapped onto the six proficiency levels of the framework. Further modifications will be made, once more data on the different language and sector versions of the tool are available and analysed.

The analysis of a preliminary set of data collected by means of the German version of the tool, with teachers in school education (Ghomi & Redecker, 2019), shows high levels of validity and reliability. Usage rates are increasing rapidly for all versions of the existing tools and new language versions are continuously being added. Once more data have been collected and analysed on different language and sector versions of the tool in the course of 2019, the tool will be revised and made available to all European teachers.

Already now, with only a test version available, it has become evident that the tool is a useful means of engaging teachers in developing their digital teaching competence. CPD providers are already integrating the tool into the training offered as a means of providing structure and engaging teachers in individual and collective reflection. Schools are integrating it into collaborative efforts to develop the digital competence of their staff. Especially in Germany and Portugal where a greater number of educators have been involved in different local implementations of the tool, it has become evident that, while it does serve its initial purpose of helping individual teachers to identify their strengths and training needs, its real power as a catalyst for change is displayed in collective applications.

8 CONCLUSIONS-LOOKING FORWARD

The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) illustrates how a framework can contribute not only to setting official targets or standards for teachers' digital competence development, but also to engaging teachers themselves in the reflective process of understanding their competence levels and professional development goals. It shows that a well-designed framework is able to reconcile different stakeholders' purposes and act as a booster of innovation in 21st-century pedagogies.

From a scientific point of view, it must be based on thorough research, on a clear understanding of professional learning needs, accompanied by an effort to conceptually mould the different aspects into a consistent, concise, flexible and intuitively understandable model. To support the communication of policy objectives and professional requirements to practitioners, it must be accompanied by clear descriptors and indicators for different progression levels for each competence.

However, to become a catalyst for change, the framework must also engage its end-users from grassroots levels. Only if teachers perceive the framework as a useful guideline for their professional development will they be willing to work on their competence. The use of a self-reflection tool that translates framework indicators into professional activities to which teachers can relate, accompanied by detailed feedback on possible avenues for enhancing their competences, can contribute to transforming an overarching framework which could otherwise be perceived as externally imposed in a bottom-up, participatory movement. Through the availability of an anonymous self-assessment tool, teachers can experience their self-assessment process as self-determined and individually-owned. Its frequent use in training courses or other collective development exercises and the ensuing discussion among participants further underscore the framework's role in inciting professional dialogue, engagement and activity rather than measuring or stratifying existing competence levels. This has a transformative power for pedagogies to promote learning partnerships of teachers and learners within and across education contexts. It has the potential for promoting teacher motivation, agency and voice, effectively harnessing the potential of digital technologies to empower 21st-century learners as resilient, reflective and responsible global citizens.

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Abstract

Teachers need to update their competence profiles for 21st century challenges. Teaching strategies need to change and so do the competences teachers need to develop so as to empower 21st-century learners. The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) represents a paradigmatic example of this endeavour, taking stock of these needs. Defining the requirements of education professionals by teacher competence frameworks can serve multiple purposes at different levels in education systems. At the micro level, it can support and guide teachers' practice and continuous professional development. At the meso level of local education governance, it can support the development of school institutions as learning organisations, providing common ground for dialogue, collaboration and reflection in professional communities of practice. At the macro level of quality assurance, it can provide reference standards for initial teacher education, and for education professionals' quality along the career continuum. The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators was designed to align with institutional and contextual requirements in different countries, whilst remaining open to adaptation and updating. It links teachers' and students' digital competence development, and can be linked to institutional capacity building. At the same time, the framework is generic enough to apply to different educational settings and to allow for adaptation as technological possibilities and constraints evolve.

1 TACKLING DIGITAL REVOLUTION CHALLENGES IN EDUCATION SYSTEMS

The digital revolution has transformed the way children and people play, access information, communicate and learn. Pre-schoolers are already familiar with digital devices. Young people today are more connected than ever, using the Internet for gaming, chatting and social networking, with a significant increase in its usage among young children (up to 8 years of age) (Schleicher, 2019).

It is teachers' responsibility to set up environments and opportunities for deep learning experiences that can uncover and boost pupils' capacities. Teachers are called on to be activators of meaningful learning, not just facilitators, being creative in choosing from a wide palette of strategies to be mixed and adjusted to context and learner. Mentors who build relationships of trust with pupils; orchestrators of individual and group learning; alchemists who compound strategies, techniques and resources to spark pupils' creativity; welders who connect bits and pieces of knowledge and activities into a meaningful whole; team players, understanding and deploying their own and others' potential to the full-teachers need to span all these roles (Caena, 2017).

Helping students to take ownership of their learning through ongoing assessment and reflection on their progress is essential. If they are asked to create, share and connect knowledge to the world, deploying the information and collaboration opportunities offered by digital tools, this can catalyse meaningful learning and increase student motivation (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). Such learning, boosted by the use of technologies, has the potential to develop creative, collaborative participants in a knowledge-based, interdependent world (Hewlett Foundation, 2012; National Research Council, 2012). For such meaningful learning to thrive, teachers need to be excellent lifelong learners, both individually and collectively. It is crucial to build up their pedagogical capacity in relation to the pervasive, enabling role of technologies in the new pedagogies model-to focus on the learning process, help students to discover and master knowledge and enable using it in the world through exploration and connectedness. In this perspective, learning outcomes that matter are not only students' capacities to build new knowledge and lead their own learning, but also the development of lifelong learning citizens (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014).

2 ALIGNING TEACHER PROFILES TO 21ST-CENTURY COMPETENCES

Twenty-first century competences can be seen as necessary to navigate contemporary and future life, shaped by technology that changes workplaces and lifestyles. They underscore new skills, but also lay new emphasis on old ones, thus equipping individuals for new ways of thinking, ways of working, tools for working and living in the world, as outlined in the Assessment and Teaching of Twenty-First Century Skills (ATC21S) framework (Binkley et al., 2012). ATC21S is an international project consortium comprising academic institutions, policymakers, technology businesses (Cisco, Intel, Microsoft) and coordinated by the University of Melbourne which aimed to promote education assessment reform, for direct impact on teaching and learning 21st-century skills (Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012).

The ATC21S framework was based on the analysis of 12 relevant frameworks from different countries and organisations (e.g., the European Commission, the US, Japan, Australia, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland) and worldwide consultations with policymakers, academics and assessment organisations (e.g., OECD, and International Association for the Advancement of Educational Achievement) (Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012). In the ATC21S framework, ways of thinking include creativity and innovation, critical thinking, problem-solving, learning-to-learn and metacognition. Ways of working span communication, collaboration and teamwork; tools for working concern information and ICT literacy. Living in the world places emphasis on local and global citizenship, life and career development, personal and social responsibility (Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012). The framework defines competence as the ability to adjust the skill performance to the demands of the situation. This view encompasses the quality and transferability of skills over time and context, acknowledging the fact that no one performs a skill at the same level, or operates at their maximum every time (Griffin & Care, 2014).

There follows the need for powerful shifts in teaching/learning processes and in the assessment of learning, with related challenges. The ATC21S perspective on 21st-century competences recommends new ways of learning and ways of teaching which need to be considered for the development of suitable assessment strategies (Griffin et al., 2012).

ATC21S proposes an innovative, tech-based approach to the assessment of collaborative problem-solving which considers its dual nature (social and cognitive). It focuses on individual skills development contributing to the collaborative endeavour and relies on technology to measure complex interactions (Griffin & Care, 2014). Such approaches require a paradigm shift in teachers' mindsets, with a focus on interdisciplinary approaches to assessment of competences in interaction, rather than on individual acquisition of discrete content knowledge units. Likewise, the importance of interpersonal and (meta)cognitive skills is stressed by the European Recommendations on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning which view a series of core transversal aspects as embedded throughout the eight Key Competences: critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, communication and negotiation skills, analytical skills, creativity, and intercultural skills (European Council, 2006, 2018). Furthermore, the 2018 Recommendation puts forward a new Key Competence (Personal, Social and Learning to Learn). It intertwines the meta-competence of learning-to-learn (adjusting to change, managing and selecting from huge information flows) with personal and social development (European Council, 2018).

It follows that teachers who are required to understand, deploy, assess, model and promote such key competences and 21st-century skills need interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-solving competences related to PTCK (Pedagogical Technological Content Knowledge) (European Commission, 2013; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This also calls for education institutions as professional learning organisations, with communities of school practitioners engaged in ongoing dialogue to promote development and reflection cycles in pupils and teachers. That is where teacher competence frameworks can stand all education stakeholders in good stead.

3 DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING TEACHER COMPETENCE FRAMEWORKS

Discussions about the competences that are needed by teachers are inevitably linked with assumptions on learning and education, context-specific education cultures, expectations and the professional status of teachers (Conway, Murphy, Rath, & Hall, 2009). The concept of competence in teaching involves tacit and explicit pedagogical subject knowledge, cognitive and practical skills and dispositions (motivation, beliefs, value orientations and emotions), as the OECD DeSeCo programme for PISA surveys points out (Rychen & Salganik, 2003). Competence means that teachers act professionally and appropriately in a situation (Koster & Dengerink, 2008) and ensures teachers' undertaking of tasks effectively (achieving the desired outcome) and efficiently (optimising resources and efforts). Finally, competence can be mapped at different levels along a continuum of development (González & Wagenaar, 2005).

A useful conceptualisation of teacher competences as a dynamic mix of cognitive and meta-cognitive elements (González & Wagenaar, 2005) spells out four fundamental aspects: learning to think, know, feel and act as teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 2008). Learning to think as teachers implies critical examination of one's beliefs and pedagogical thinking. Learning to know as teachers requires deep subject and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), as well as the knowledge of new technologies applied to subject teaching (PTCK-Pedagogical Technological Content Knowledge) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). These three knowledge sets need the support of metacognitive skills (learning and knowledge management; reflection strategies) for teachers to retrieve and use knowledge effectively (Feiman-Nemser, 2008). Learning to feel as teachers is linked with professional identity: intellectual and emotional aspects (Hagger & McIntyre, 2006). Learning to act as teachers entails integrating thoughts, knowledge and dispositions in practices informed by consistent principles (Feiman-Nemser, 2008).

A wider view of teacher expertise embedded in the education ecosystem spans the interlocking areas of reflexivity, professional awareness, individualisation, cooperation and personal mastery (Schratz et al., 2007; Schratz & Wieser, 2002). Reflexivity means developing professional thinking and discourse, based on situated pedagogic issues and experiences (Bastian & Helsper, 2000). Professional awareness is the conscious expertise of the teacher (subject-based and transversal, individual and organisational) (Bauer, 2000). Individualisation entails the knowledge, skills and attitudes to deal with diversity and inclusion (Prengel, 1995). Cooperation implies the teacher's actions and attitudes for dialogue and interaction in social contexts and professional communities; it is viewed as an aspect that is most in need of development in school organisations (Bastian & Helsper, 2000; Terhart & Klieme, 2005). Teachers' competences in cooperation (knowledge, skills and above all attitudes) are bound to be reflected in pupils'. They are also crucial for co-planning and co-enacting suitable pedagogies for the development of 21st-century competences in digital natives. Personal mastery is a pre-requisite for previous competences and entails creativity and vision in effective professional thinking, knowledge and action (Reh, 2004). A sixth area combines all into a whole-the teacher's action in context, with responsibility in shaping it and developing knowledge (Senge, 1996).

Across this broad range of perspectives on teacher expertise, a few staple requirements stand out. Teachers need adaptive expertise-the ability to adapt plans and practices to meet students' learning needs (Hatano & Oura, 2003; Vogt & Rogalla, 2009). They also require reflective practice, that is systematic assessment of professional knowledge and action against criteria from practice, theory and research (Hagger & McIntyre, 2006). Finally, they should have critical, responsive attitudes to innovation and professional improvement (Hagger & McIntyre, 2006). Reflective practice and adaptive expertise are both indispensable for 21st-century educators interacting with digital natives in VUCA (Volatile, Unpredictable, Complex, Ambiguous) worlds. The image below provides an overview of teacher competences, embedded in complex systems in ongoing change (Caena & Margiotta, 2008).

A comparative view on approaches used in European countries suggests that, to be successfully implemented, a teacher competence framework should include the following features:

rely on clear statements of the underlying educational philosophy;

accommodate all dimensions of teachers' professional work;

acknowledge that teaching involves a cycle of self-evaluation and improvement;

be consistent with (but not limited by) the desired learner outcomes;

the key attributes of stability, durability and flexibility (European Commission, 2013).

Building flexibility into the framework allows for local interpretations, leaves room for creativity, and refrains from limiting professional agency (European Commission, 2013). This aspect is fundamental for the profiles of teachers as adaptive professionals-a core requirement in forward-looking education contexts.

Teacher competence frameworks can serve three main purposes: defining outcomes of teacher education, criteria for teacher recruitment and selection, and teacher professional development needs (European Commission, 2013). They can provide teachers with a clear image of their roles, promoting attitudes to professional reflection and autonomy along teachers' careers. Then, as reference points for key professional knowledge and skills, they can support effective professional development at individual and institutional level, by helping focus on learning priorities and needs at different career stages (European Commission, 2013).

Providing shared standards for professional profiles, teacher competence frameworks can also contribute to ensuring effective teacher education provision. Finally, depending on context features, teacher competence frameworks can also help acknowledge achievement in education practitioners' careers (European Commission, 2013). Overall, teacher competence frameworks can support teacher quality, empowerment and responsibility if they have a formative focus and have been shaped promoting teachers' ownership (European Commission, 2013).

4 MOTIVATION FOR DIGCOMPEDU

Policymakers and teachers alike are aware that our education systems have not kept pace or come to terms with the changes brought about by the digital revolution. In many cases, teachers are unsure about how digital technologies can and should be integrated into education. Education authorities are cautious about the use of a medium that they perceive as potentially dangerous in such a sensitive and protective context as the education of minors, considering that it can lead to undesirable effects, such as cyberbullying. Yet, they equally realise that schools must prepare the young generation for life in a digital society and equip them with the necessary competences to use the Internet responsibly, critically and creatively to enhance their social interactions and life opportunities. Hence, there is a general consensus that digital competences are key for all citizens to engage in lifelong learning, to facilitate personal fulfilment and development, employability, social inclusion and active citizenship (European Council, 2018).

Curricula, guidelines or standards for digital education in schools have recently become common in most European Member States. At the European level, the European Digital Competence Framework (DigComp) was published in 2013 and revised in 2016 and 2017 as a means of offering a common frame of reference. It describes the digital competence every citizen should develop for a successful life in a digital society, breaking it down into five areas: information and data literacy; communication and collaboration; digital content creation; safety; and problem-solving (Carretero, Vuorikari, & Punie, 2017; Ferrari, 2013; Vuorikari, Punie, Carretero, & Van Den Brande, 2016). In several European Member States, the framework has been used as an explicit reference for national guidelines, particularly in guiding school education. In Germany, for example, the Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) refined it for their framework of students' digital competence (Kluzer & Pujol Priego, 2018; KMK, 2016).

To better understand the digital competences teachers need to develop to meaningfully integrate digital technologies in education and support the acquisition of students' digital competences, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre published the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) with a focus on the digital competences that are specific to the teaching profession (Redecker, 2017). It is based on extensive expert and stakeholder consultations and aims to structure existing insights and evidence into one comprehensive model that is applicable, in principle, to all educational contexts. The generation and dissemination of this framework illustrate how frameworks can contribute to innovation in education and teacher professional development.

5 FRAMEWORK GENERATION

Designing a transnational framework requires that one understands existing national and transnational instruments already in use, as well as a methodology for learning from these instruments to develop a common frame of reference that resonates with existing policies and, at the same time, goes beyond cultural and contextual specifics. Hence, the methodological approach for the development of DigCompEdu was based on two major stages: (i) The in-depth analysis, clustering and mapping of existing frameworks, self-assessment tools, guidelines, conceptual models and instruments used for the development of educators' digital competence; and (ii) a series of expert and stakeholder consultations to refine, re-arrange, correct and validate the conceptual model developed in the previous stage.

At first, on the basis of extensive desk research, more than 50 instruments were identified as relevant and analysed in their basic components. 32 of these were finally selected as a basis for the generation of a first draft framework. The remaining instruments were excluded as not sufficiently sound or detailed, or substantially different in focus and scope. The basic elements in the selected instruments were then mapped to form competences and clustered to form competence areas. The competences and areas thus defined were then mapped onto the original frameworks to validate their coherence and consistency. The result was submitted to a series of stakeholder consultations: face-to-face meetings with teachers, researchers and policy makers, as well as open online stakeholder consultations on subsequent framework drafts. Initially, consultations had been conceived as a means of refining and validating the conceptual model; however, stakeholder discussions foregrounded a clear need for a framework that did more than synthesise existing tools. There was overall consensus among experts and representatives of the European Member States that a European framework should include important aspects of innovation underlying European education policy initiatives. As a result, the DigCompEdu fulfils its purpose of providing a common reference frame for national, regional and local initiatives. It also invites policy makers and practitioners to re-consider the role of technology in education as an enabler for innovation and describes educators' digital competence as a professional (rather than digital) competence, conducive to creating learning experiences that reflect and address the changed skill needs and working patterns in a digital age.

6 CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE FRAMEWORK

The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) details 22 educator-specific digital competences, organised in six areas (Redecker, 2017) (Figure 1).

Applied to the context of school education, Area 1 ( Professional Engagement) describes teachers' efficient, appropriate use of technologies and digital learning opportunities for communication and collaboration with colleagues, students, parents and others. In addition, it emphasises the importance for teachers to individually and collectively reflect on their teaching practices, to critically assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of their digital teaching strategies and to actively develop them further.

The core of the DigCompEdu framework is represented by areas 2 to 5 in which technologies are integrated into teaching in a pedagogically meaningful way. Area 2 ( Digital Resources) focuses on the selection, creation, modification and management of digital educational resources. This includes the protection of personal data in accordance with data protection regulations and compliance with copyright laws when modifying and publishing digital resources.

The third area ( Teaching and Learning) deals with planning, designing and orchestrating the use of digital technologies in teaching practice. It focuses on the integration of digital resources and methods to promote collaborative and self-regulated learning processes and on the need to accompany these learner-led processes with effective guidance and support measures.

Area 4 ( Assessment) addresses the concrete use of digital technologies for assessing student performance and learning needs to comprehensively analyse performance data and provide targeted, timely feedback to learners.

Area 5, Empowering Learners, emphasises the importance of creating learning activities and experiences that address students' needs and allow them to actively develop their learning journey. Teachers are able to use digital technologies to foster differentiation and personalisation by allowing different levels and speeds, individual learning pathways and objectives. They encourage students' active engagement in digital activities, ensuring equal access to technologies.

Area 6 ( Facilitating Learners' Digital Competence) maintains that digitally-competent teachers should facilitate their students' digital competence, enabling them to manage risks and use digital technologies safely and responsibly. Teachers should be able to promote information and media literacy and integrate activities to enable digital problem solving, digital content creation and digital technology use for communication and cooperation.

Each individual competence of the DigCompEdu framework is described along six proficiency levels (from A1 to C2) with a cumulative progression, similar to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

Teachers at the first two levels (A1-A2) have started to use technology in some areas and are aware of the potential of digital technologies to enhance pedagogical and professional practice. Those at the intermediate level (B1-B2) already integrate digital technologies in a variety of ways and contexts. At the highest levels (C1-C2), they share their expertise with peers, experiment with innovative complex technologies and develop new pedagogical approaches and assessment strategies. The description of levels for each competence is intended to help teachers to reflect and understand their personal strengths and weaknesses.

Other educator-specific competences-e.g., subject-specific competences, general digital competence as defined by the DigComp framework-are important prerequisites for the development of DigCompEdu. However, these are beyond the scope of the framework, which focuses on educator-specific digital competence. While the TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) views technological (T), pedagogical (P) and content (C) knowledge as required to integrate technology in teaching, the DigCompEdu framework is wider in scope, considering educators' digital competences as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes, with the skill dimension dominating over the knowledge dimension. It explicitly includes considerations of the educators' professional working environment and the multiple interactions with learners, colleagues and external stakeholders.

At the same time, for teaching and learning processes (i.e., Areas 2 to 5), DigCompEdu is narrower in scope than TPACK, as it focuses on the pedagogical dimension (PK). It does not contemplate the specificities and constraints of different subjects, i.e., the content dimension (CK), which it assumes is described in curricula and teaching guidelines. Similarly, it takes the technological dimension (TK) as sufficiently described by other frameworks, e.g., the DigComp framework, and only considers this dimension where it overlaps with the pedagogical dimension.

This focus on the pedagogical dimension allows DigCompEdu to supply detail and still be applicable across all subjects in a continuously changing technological landscape. Thus, it explicitly describes how digital technologies can be effectively integrated into teaching and learning, how they can be used to enhance teaching and learning strategies, which key objectives should guide their implementation and how their use can, with growing experience and competence, lead to innovation in education.

7 FRAMEWORK IMPLEMENTATION AND SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

Competence frameworks are primarily targeted at national, regional, local authorities and stakeholders (including initial and in-service teacher education providers, as well as school leadership) that are responsible for the design, implementation and evaluation of policy initiatives, guidelines, curricula and practices. Consequently, in some Member States and regions, DigCompEdu has already been integrated in training courses and guidelines for teachers, such as in the region of Saarland in Germany ( http://tiny.cc/medienkurs), or is being contemplated to be included in future guidelines, such as in Portugal and Croatia. In Spain, the CRUE network of higher education institutions is planning to use it as part of CPD activities for their academic staff, while in Germany the German Adult Education Association (Deutscher Volkshochschul-Verband e.V.) and the Goethe Institut are interested in using the framework for the training of their lecturers. In many instances, the framework report has been translated by national or local actors into different target languages to facilitate the take-up by national and regional actors ( https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu/supporting-materials). Experiences with DigComp show that the level and speed of integrating a European framework in official national guidelines and curricula largely depend on national specificities, needs and policy cycles. It is therefore to be expected that, over the next five to ten years, more and more guidance documents will make reference to DigCompEdu. However, in the case of DigCompEdu, the formal adoption and integration of a European framework at the national or regional level are not the main avenues in which the framework aims to foster innovation and change in education. More and more evidence recently points out that digital education policies are only successful if and where it has been possible to obtain the teachers' buy-in, participation, engagement and, eventually, ownership of the process (Conrads, Rasmussen, Winters, Geniet, & Langer, 2017).

Hence, to acquaint educators with the DigCompEdu framework and integrate its concepts in their own practical theories about digital teaching competence, an online self-assessment instrument has been developed which is freely accessible in a number of languages ( https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu/self-assessment). The development and implementation of the tool were accompanied by the setup of a stakeholder community in which experts and practitioners contributed to the conceptual design of the tool and were invited to exchange their experiences with deploying the framework and the tool in different contexts ( https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/en/community/digcompedu-community).

At the conceptual level, the development of the tool was guided by three principles: (i) to condense and simplify the key ideas of the framework, (ii) to translate competence descriptors into concrete activities and practices that teachers can relate to, and (iii) to offer targeted feedback to teachers according to individual levels of competence for each of the 22 indicators. Following these principles, 22 items were developed, one per competence. Each consists of a statement describing the core of the competence in concrete, practical terms, and five possible answers which are cumulatively structured and mapped onto the proficiency levels. Teachers are asked to select the answer that best reflects their practice.

The instrument development followed an iterative process of expert consultations, pre-piloting and item revision (Benali, Kaddouri, & Azzimani, 2018; Ghomi & Redecker, 2019). The main changes to the initial version entailed creating versions for different educator audiences and a stronger alignment of the answer scale with the DigCompEdu framework progression. This was deemed to be necessary because the use of terminology that is specific to different educational sectors would improve the user experience, especially when comparing school, higher and adult education. It also allowed for targeted and actionable feedback, taking into account different educational contexts and their specific constraints.

Initially, a common answer scale was used with options ordered by frequency, ranging from 'I have never done this' to 'I comprehensively/systematically do this'. Following expert consultation, it was decided to map the answer options more closely on DigCompEdu competence descriptors and progression. Experts agreed that each competence should be represented by only one item and that the total digital competence should consist of all 22 items. Therefore, in some cases, a choice had to be made between different aspects that were crucial to a given competence. However, care was taken to select the most generic and basic concept. For example, for competence 2.3- Managing, protecting, sharing, it was decided to focus on data protection rather than on copyright rules or the use of shared content repositories.

Similarly, the framework's competence progression in six stages was transformed into a five-point-scale-considering progression stages that were expected to be prevalent among current teachers. The scales underlying the framework are based on the assumption that digital competence development involves the following stages: no use-basic use-diversification-meaningful use-systematic use-innovation. In some cases, the categories of meaningful and systematic use were merged, as it was deemed difficult for users to differentiate between the two (see Table 1). In other cases, where current usage patterns were unlikely to display innovative strategies, the highest competence level was left out.

Level

DigCompEdu framework:

Item 3.1:

SCORE

3.1 Teaching

I carefully consider how, when and why to use digital technologies in class, to ensure that they are used with added value.

To plan for and implement digital devices and resources in the teaching process, so as to enhance the effectiveness of teaching interventions

To appropriately manage and orchestrate digital teaching interventions

To experiment with and develop new formats and pedagogical methods for instruction

The resulting instrument employs five answer options for which points ranging from 0 to 4 are scored. In the feedback report, the total score-ranging from 0 to 88 points-is mapped onto the six proficiency levels of the framework. Further modifications will be made, once more data on the different language and sector versions of the tool are available and analysed.

The analysis of a preliminary set of data collected by means of the German version of the tool, with teachers in school education (Ghomi & Redecker, 2019), shows high levels of validity and reliability. Usage rates are increasing rapidly for all versions of the existing tools and new language versions are continuously being added. Once more data have been collected and analysed on different language and sector versions of the tool in the course of 2019, the tool will be revised and made available to all European teachers.

Already now, with only a test version available, it has become evident that the tool is a useful means of engaging teachers in developing their digital teaching competence. CPD providers are already integrating the tool into the training offered as a means of providing structure and engaging teachers in individual and collective reflection. Schools are integrating it into collaborative efforts to develop the digital competence of their staff. Especially in Germany and Portugal where a greater number of educators have been involved in different local implementations of the tool, it has become evident that, while it does serve its initial purpose of helping individual teachers to identify their strengths and training needs, its real power as a catalyst for change is displayed in collective applications.

8 CONCLUSIONS-LOOKING FORWARD

The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) illustrates how a framework can contribute not only to setting official targets or standards for teachers' digital competence development, but also to engaging teachers themselves in the reflective process of understanding their competence levels and professional development goals. It shows that a well-designed framework is able to reconcile different stakeholders' purposes and act as a booster of innovation in 21st-century pedagogies.

From a scientific point of view, it must be based on thorough research, on a clear understanding of professional learning needs, accompanied by an effort to conceptually mould the different aspects into a consistent, concise, flexible and intuitively understandable model. To support the communication of policy objectives and professional requirements to practitioners, it must be accompanied by clear descriptors and indicators for different progression levels for each competence.

However, to become a catalyst for change, the framework must also engage its end-users from grassroots levels. Only if teachers perceive the framework as a useful guideline for their professional development will they be willing to work on their competence. The use of a self-reflection tool that translates framework indicators into professional activities to which teachers can relate, accompanied by detailed feedback on possible avenues for enhancing their competences, can contribute to transforming an overarching framework which could otherwise be perceived as externally imposed in a bottom-up, participatory movement. Through the availability of an anonymous self-assessment tool, teachers can experience their self-assessment process as self-determined and individually-owned. Its frequent use in training courses or other collective development exercises and the ensuing discussion among participants further underscore the framework's role in inciting professional dialogue, engagement and activity rather than measuring or stratifying existing competence levels. This has a transformative power for pedagogies to promote learning partnerships of teachers and learners within and across education contexts. It has the potential for promoting teacher motivation, agency and voice, effectively harnessing the potential of digital technologies to empower 21st-century learners as resilient, reflective and responsible global citizens.

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (Digcompedu)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Francesca Caena , Christine Redecker , European Commission Joint Research Centre, Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain Search for more papers by this author Corresponding Author European Commission Joint Research Centre, Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain Correspondence Francesca Caena, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain Email: Francesca.CAENA@ec.europa.eu Search for more papers by this author First published: Teachers need to update their competence profiles for 21st century challenges.

# data[].attributes.body
Create a planning tool that can be used with any unit in any subject. Helps with incorporating character qualities and competencies into assessment and learning experiences.

Survey teachers on 21st C Sk knowledge and use in planning process?

Are competencies and character qualities integrated into pacing calendars and units??

How are teachers making students aware of the specific skills and competencies that they are developing? Should teaching points/I can statements include language that helps the learner understand that specific skills they are developing. How are assessments incorporating these skills? ("what gets assessed is what gets learned.")

# data[].attributes.body
How can teachers better integrate instruction of competencies like collaboration, creativity and problem-solvingm and character qualties like persistance, curiousity and initiative?

History of the modern school structure?

# data[].attributes.body
What's the research behind immersion programs versus integrated?

# data[].attributes.body
What are the essential components/structures that a school district should have in place to adequately support migrant students/refugees?

What resources are out there and how can schools use them effectively?

# data[].attributes.body
How can schools deliberately promote the celebration of all cultures within the community?

What are the challenges to having such a diverse school population?

What kind of diversity training is available, and are international schools prioritizing candidates with those credentials and experience?

Are the leadership expectations within international schools more in line with the dominating culture, or the local culture? What are the challenges when it comes to differences in parent expectations (local culture vs non-local)

# data[].attributes.body
What is the experience of a TCK who has moved to several different schools with different curriculum?

A look at the effective practices within international schools for filling the gaps that TCK's hold from moving around so often.

How does the change in curriculum effect TCK's attitude towards learning?

# data[].attributes.body
how does departmentalization influence the ability to target 21st century skills in international schools?

Departmentalization to support ELLs

How does a rotating block schedule versus a 7-period daily schedule influence teachers ability to target 21st century skills.

Self-directed learners

# data[].attributes.body
Robust: strong and healthy, vigorous. Rich in flavor and smell.

Great (writers, innovators, scholars, etc.) reflect upon their work and ask themselves how they can make it more robust.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Erin Meyer: Retaining Authenticity Working in Foreign Countries - Global Matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CNN Zakaria interview with Erin Meyer: The Culture Map

# data[].attributes.headline
How is the local Education System in Barcelona adapting to the influx in refugees?

# data[].attributes.subject
How is the local Education System in Barcelona adapting to the influx in refugees?

# data[].attributes.body
Do they promote full assimilation, or a balance of both cultures? How does that affect students?

# data[].attributes.headline
Project Based Learning and 21st Century Skills questions

# data[].attributes.subject
Project Based Learning and 21st Century Skills questions

# data[].attributes.body
something looking at how effective PBL is in developing 21st century skills

# data[].attributes.headline
How do structures of language systems effect preferred learning styles

# data[].attributes.subject
How do structures of language systems effect preferred learning styles

# data[].attributes.body
Some emerging research suggests that students think differently based on their native language and the structures that build it. For example, the way that many Eastern Asian Languages are structured might lend to a more mathematically-thinking mind... etc.

In what ways does someones native language effect their approaches to learning?

# data[].attributes.body
IB training
PD in Finnish pedagogy
Destination Imagination Training
G&T Projects
Strategy groups- More deliberate Planning
Creative Journaling Class
Aran: Change Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sir Ken Robinson makes an entertaining and profoundly moving case for creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the role of international schools?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the role of international schools?

# data[].attributes.body
teaching 21st century skills- problem solver, collaborator, innovator, communicator
teaching the value of creativity
Encouraging education for international understanding (not just international because children of many nationalities attend, truly international with what we are teaching, promoting celebration of cultures)

# data[].attributes.headline
Internationalism and Globalization as Contexts for International Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Internationalism and Globalization as Contexts for International Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
M12U1A2 -  Internationalism and Globalization as Contexts.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
M12U1A2 - Globalizing Education Policy.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
M13U2A1 - The Negotiation of Identity in an International School Setting.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Watch VC 1, 2, 3
Write Summaries

Unit 1:
A1: Blog post on the impact of globalization on education.
A2 Assessments

Unit 2:
A1: Geographical flow maps with a partner on world migration data for a specific region over 5 decades
Tips for supporting immigrant and refugee students
Discussion on guided questions on supporting immigrant and refugee students
A2: Blog post on cultural and social impact of migration on students
Audio or video recording of your own story on challenges and advantages of moving in a globalized world

# data[].attributes.body
Middleton comments on the difference between visiting a place as a tourist and actually immersing yourself in the culture. While traveling does expose you to new ideas that you might never have come across otherwise, those ideas that we form about the world and cultures within it will be superficial unless we have taken the time to really plunge into the depths of the local culture. This was true for me when I compare my understanding of Spanish & Catalan culture when I was a study abroad student in Barcelona to my understanding of the culture now after living here for 5 years and marrying my Catalan partner.

By crossing the boundaries that Middleton refers to, we develop more human connection and understanding between diverse groups. For an organization, this is critical as collaboration and creativity will be deterred if there isn't a feeling of harmony among members.

It's interesting to note that Middleton had to actively seek these interactions. It's true that we tend to get stuck in our own little bubbles within our communities and it can be difficult to have meaningful interactions with people outside of our own socioeconomic status unless we choose to or our profession requires us to. Society is not set up for diverse interactions to naturally occur.

Middleton states that we all have core and flex behaviors, values, and beliefs that dictate who we truly are. If our "core" is weak compared to our flex, we may run into issues with our own identity or building relationships and trust with others. Someone with a weak core would be so willing to bend towards others behaviors, values, and beliefs, we might doubt that they have any of their own at all.

It can be easy to generalize a population, as Middleton points out, and accept a narrative about "them" and how "they" are so different from "us." We don't often pause to think about the various layers to an individual's identity and how we likely have many things in common.

Middleton points out that what might be flex for one person could be core for another person. It's not just about being equally flexible between one culture to another, it's about developing understanding and showing that you acknowledge others values and beliefs, even if they are different from your own.

We all hold prejudice, or "knots in our core." I love what she says about dealing with those knots on our own and not making them other people's problems. I imagine a world where political agendas are not tied up with people's personal "knots," where we all accept that people have varying needs, wants, values, etc. and that we don't need to dictate other people's lifestyle choices that don't effect us. We recognize the humanity in everyone and put our effort towards working on building a better society for all.

Middleton points out a paradox: those who seek cultural intelligence need to obtain it from someone who is willing to reveal themselves; those who might disclose their personal beliefs & values will only do so with someone who appears to have enough cultural intelligence to receive them.

Cultural intolerance: inability to hold flex or show any sort of openness towards values outside of your own.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cultural intelligence: the competitive edge for leaders | Julia Middleton | TEDxEastEnd